ThrobblefootSpectre:"Bump" firing has been around since my grandfather's time. So let's suddenly panic about it now, since violent crime has been dropping so dramatically for decades. Ready....panic!!!!

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste:In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.

Nope, that's what anti-gun people project onto gun owners. And it's somewhat due to ignorance, but mainly it's due to wanting to demonize someone they don't agree with. Kind of like how I think people like you are pants-wetters. You know, the kind of people that piss all over themselves in abject terror when presented with a piece of technology, that's been around for at least 20 years that I know of, because they think it's scary.

But I know that isn't accurate of all anti-gun people, but it is true about some of them. Just like some gun owners have Rambo/Dirty Harry fantasies, but most don't.

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste:doglover: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's grabber's mind is the scenario where there are exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

Gun owners actually know how guns work.

FTFY

You got me there, tough guy.

If there were 900 feds coming for you, your best bet is to not have started a cult called "The United Church of Commies Who Want to Rape The Following List of Current Politicians to Death: (list of current g'vt staff)" and then placed an order through the undercover FBI guy for 10,000 guns, 1,000,000 bullets 1,000 Armored Cars, 10,000 suits of body armor, and one set of lawn darts. I mean the guns and the armor, okay, but those lawn darts could really hurt someone!

Seriously though, I don't think there were even 900 feds during the Waco siege. That's a LOT of feds.

Also, you can't hit shiat with automatic fire. Go on youtube and you'll see all kinds of Marine helmet cam footage from Iraq and Afghanistan. The only time they use full auto is when they're taking fire and they need to buy some time to get to cover. With an actual machine gun designed to fire rapidly and lots of professional military training spraying out bullets still doesn't hit ANYTHING. An AR-15 is not designed to fire very quickly. It would be less accurate.

Then consider that real machine guns need the barrel swapped out fairly frequently during sustained use. There's all kinds of stories about soldiers in every war since WW1 melting their barrels. Why? Barrels absorb a lot of heat. That's why mini-guns have SIX of them. Even if you could fire 900 rounds through an AR-15 in a minute, the weapon would probably be destroyed before you were out of ammo. It ain't healthy for the gun to be treated like that.

duffblue:Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.

Can you point me in the direction of a weapon capable of firing 900-1100 RPM and the magazine that goes with it? I'm interested in purchasing one.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

Dancin_In_Anson:You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post.

I keep writing responses to people and think "ho ho! You clever dog, this will show them!" Then right as i get ready to hit enter i stop and think "wait a tick, this is the internet! Nobody has ever been persuaded to change their opinion in the history of EVER on here!" So i delete it and keep reading.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?

According to SCOTUS it's an individual right.

So your brain can stop trying to process that paragraph.

Dude, I'm not trying to take away your guns. But the argument that "cars kill people, but we don't ban cars!" is pretty silly.

I would disagree because the anti-gun movement is largely based on "military style" firearms.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?

The amendment says nothing about a militia being a per-requisite to owning weapons. It's the reason. See that comma? Look:

You should exercise and eat vegetables because a healthy body is important.

A healthy body being important, you should exercise and eat vegetables.

Recognize the sentence structure? The REASON we should not infringe the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is because they will one day need a well regulated militia. It's not a prerequisite, merely the reasoning behind the right.

violentsalvation:juvandy: I never said that this was the only reason people buy AR-15s, just that there ARE legitimate uses of them in the animal control/sporting world, which you (and many ignorant in the media)

The funny thing about that is that the same author wrote this BS opinion piece shrouded in the guise of journalism Link

I mean, when I go to learn about a certain gun and its capabilities, I don't go to this guy.

Who admits he doesn't own a gun because the laws in New York were a hindrance to his rights. But he's an expert now.

Jesus, does everyone go out of their way to look like a goddamn charicature? Seriously, you couldn't ask for a better visual depiction of a clueless NY liberal Blogger.

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

ThrobblefootSpectre:"Bump" firing has been around since my grandfather's time. So let's suddenly panic about it now, since violent crime has been dropping so dramatically for decades. Ready....panic!!!!

doglover:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?

The amendment says nothing about a militia being a per-requisite to owning weapons. It's the reason. See that comma? Look:

You should exercise and eat vegetables because a healthy body is important.

A healthy body being important, you should exercise and eat vegetables.

Recognize the sentence structure? The REASON we should not infringe the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is because they will one day need a well regulated militia. It's not a prerequisite, merely the reasoning behind the right.

demaL-demaL-yeH:doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated Militia

Which is not possible without the individual right to own guns. I'm sorry you are still stuck on the wording and have ignored all the other writings by the founding padres and have decided their intent based on four words and none of the words after it, or any context at all. If you don't like it you'll have to amend it. If that is what you want, go at it.

demaL-demaL-yeH:doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated Militia

It says because so and so, the right of the people shall not be infringed. Why does the reason given make it a qualifier, and not what it later clearly states, that it shall not be infringed? If it said that because a healthy and vibrant press is essential to our liberty, freedom of speech shall not be infringed, I suppose you'd be arguing that it was intended that you have a press card to speak freely? Of course you wouldn't, because that obviously wrong interpretation doesn't fit your agenda.

My training always said-aim for anyone firing full auto, and aim for anyone firing single shots. We used three round bursts. Shrug. Was a while back though. Anyways the idea was-anyone firing full auto was going to be out of ammo pretty darn quick, and an easy target after most likely not hitting anything. Don't let that be you.

On the other hand...I want one of these. Not for their killing potential..but just because it looks FUN.

What most people seems to convieniently forget when spouting the gun death stats is that the stats include the suicides, accidents, murders, death by cops killing criminals, ect.

The anti-gun lobby wants you to ignore the fact that most of the gun deaths are not standard suburban or rural incidents. Most of the gun deaths are to young black males by young black males in poor areas of large concentrations of young black males. Now this is not a troll. This is just the way it really is. If you really want to follow the formula for banning things using the standards of the antis, you would have to ban young black males.

The real answer to all of the crime that you see every day on the news is to stop treating the criminals like they are some sort of special, misunderstood royalty and make prison as miserable as possible. We need to make it tough on criminals, not make it better to be in prison than home. Most of the criminals have records a mile long. Why do we keep putting these people back on the street? They are the ones doing the majority of the crime, not stupid assed kids with mental issues. Although that raises another important issue. Nut cases shoot more people at one time (most of the time) career criminals spread the killing around more.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

I really only want to see the pics if he's considering a .22 or smaller, thanks.

doglover:Recognize the sentence structure? The REASON we should not infringe the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is because they will one day need a well regulated militia. It's not a prerequisite, merely the reasoning behind the right.

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

Is this sarcasm? I'm not really pro or anti-gun, more gun-neutral, but the pro-2nd amendment folks always seem much more intelligent and articulate in these threads, at least in relation to firearms and the law. The anti-gun people constantly use numerous logical fallacies and misleading terminology to make their points. They may be more education overall (who the fark knows) but it certainly isn't demonstrated by their participation in gun threads.

imthefonze:Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

I really only want to see the pics if he's considering a .22 or smaller, thanks.

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

My belief is that the reason the 2nd Amendment is faltering is that it was written at a time when guns were the top weapon of the day. Today we must figure out whether popular majorities can constrain governments building ever more specialized weaponry, or whether the planet is destined to fall back into a period of authoritarian rule. Carroll Quiqley saw the Enlightenment as partly a technological accident - a quirky period of history:

In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, the majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. The medieval period, in which the best weapon was usually a mounted knight on horseback (clearly a specialist weapon) was a period of minority rule and authoritarian government... But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840, a revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain them). -Tragedy & Hope, p. 34The best hope democracy has to prevail on the planet today is not through guns, but with the rise of cheap information technology, making it harder for governments to cloak their secrets. Governments know this, of course, and that's what makes the popular adoption of IT in places like China so interesting to watch.That said, I think strict gun control is farcical. I live in a gun-less home, but the idea of introducing strict government control over a 19th century technology is as senseless as banning matches and lighters because of the occasional arson. You're far more likely to be killed by a deer running in front of your car than die in a mass shooting. That's my uneducated, unintelligent take on it.

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

That really is weird. Because what I definitely see in these threads is that anti-gun people are obsessed with penis size (in every single thread), think about the children a little too often, and panic over stuff that has been around for decades and never used in a crime, while crime is falling steadily. I have yet to see a single coherent rational argument from someone who wants to further restrict guns. Mostly it's the "think of the children!!!" argument used to back up the TSA and anti-abortion arguments also.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

I really only want to see the pics if he's considering a .22 or smaller, thanks.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:violentsalvation: juvandy: I never said that this was the only reason people buy AR-15s, just that there ARE legitimate uses of them in the animal control/sporting world, which you (and many ignorant in the media)

The funny thing about that is that the same author wrote this BS opinion piece shrouded in the guise of journalism Link

I mean, when I go to learn about a certain gun and its capabilities, I don't go to this guy.

Who admits he doesn't own a gun because the laws in New York were a hindrance to his rights. But he's an expert now.

Jesus, does everyone go out of their way to look like a goddamn caricature? Seriously, you couldn't ask for a better visual depiction of a clueless NY liberal Blogger.

violentsalvation:demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated Militia

Which is not possible without the individual right to own guns. I'm sorry you are still stuck on the wording and have ignored all the other writings by the founding padres and have decided their intent based on four words and none of the words after it, or any context at all. If you don't like it you'll have to amend it. If that is what you want, go at it.

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

I like it when a few anti-gun people start talking about banning guns, and then other anti-gun people try to argue that nobody's trying to ban guns. The completely mangled sentences like mentioning how a poster found shells that flew a mile or two out of a gun and obviously have no idea what they're talking about... There's just so much fail to go around.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

Is this sarcasm? I'm not really pro or anti-gun, more gun-neutral, but the pro-2nd amendment folks always seem much more intelligent and articulate in these threads, at least in relation to firearms and the law. The anti-gun people constantly use numerous logical fallacies and misleading terminology to make their points. They may be more education overall (who the fark knows) but it certainly isn't demonstrated by their participation in gun threads.

The problem is that gun lovers are only educated about guns. They almost literally know nothing beyond this topic. The rest of humanity doesn't get caught in their semantics and obsessions with minutiae and just want the incidence of kindergarteners murdered to decline. One doesn't need to be a gun expert to call for reform, thank God.

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus:imthefonze: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

I would say that is rude and i disagree.

You have not persuaded me to change my opinion.

I would say because the pro gun group generally tries to put up numbers based on reports released by such entities as the fbi to support their claims for why banning of assault weapons, pro gun control enthusiasts try to push an emotionally or fear based idea (children dying, the slide fire stock, .50 bmg, etc). Sometimes figures from other countries are used, but due to cultural and historical problems cannot be considered fact (japans gun laws despite police rights over civilian rights, history of gun ownership, etc)

SuperNinjaToad:p51d007: Here is an idea for you lib gun haters out there.We divide off the country, put everyone that hates guns, wants them banned onone side of the country. Put the gun lovers on the other side. Then erect a 100 FOOTwall. 50 feet high, and 50 feet deep. NO ONE is allowed to move from one side orthe other. Then, in a few years we see how many people on the gun lovers side end updead from "bad guys", versus how many anti gun lovers are still alive, have any of theirproperty etc. In a few years, the pro gun lovers can then come tear down the wall, andhave the fun of shooting up the bad guys on the anti gun lovers side, because, oncethe bad guys find out there is absolutely NO WEAPONS on the anti gun side, they willhave a field day raping and destroying everything on the anti gun side.

EXCEPT there is a big giant flaw in your hypothetical scenerio which you didn;t take into account. I would assume said bad guys are also 'gun lovers' therefore most if not all of them would be on your side. Have fun dealing with all the gun lovers who are members of MS-13, Bloods, Crips and your paranoid racist anti govermment militia types.I myself am not anti gun but in your 'experiment' I think I would rather go to the no-gun side of the fence since as you said no one from each side can cross over.

Thank you both for completely proving my point in that you're both half right. An equal proportion of both populations would be criminal, in theory. While there may be some criminals on the non-gun side who acquire guns, there would be some criminals on the gun side who wouldn't use them and wouldn't be life-threatening enough to get fired at through their illegal activities (i.e. white collar crimes).

Both sides would have people who did good and bad, who accidentally or intentionally killed people with or without guns. And after both sides leveled off in crime and such, you would find that the common factor clearly can't be guns, and therefore must be humans. That being said humans are clearly the problem. Not just their existence, but it starts with the idea of looking at someone and not seeing them as an equal.

Can't you guys see we've already put the walls up. Liberal vs Conservative, Republican vs Democrat, Men vs Women, Adults vs Kids, Atheists vs Theists. It is these walls that are the problem and they have been around since the beginning, and unless you change, you will continue to put them up, and you will be a role model to your peers that they are doing the right thing by treating other people as though they weren't just as human as you are. We are one human race, we have our differences, but instead of struggling for power, why don't we work together. If there is something two people absolutely will not disagree on, then they shouldn't be the ones making the decisions. there's more than two humans on earth, more than two political parties, more than two perspectives on every debate. Stop picking a side because it is safe, easy, and makes you feel accepted. Think for yourself and kindly and lovingly encourage others to do the same. Peace.

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

Is this sarcasm? I'm not really pro or anti-gun, more gun-neutral, but the pro-2nd amendment folks always seem much more intelligent and articulate in these threads, at least in relation to firearms and the law. The anti-gun people constantly use numerous logical fallacies and misleading terminology to make their points. They may be more education overall (who the fark knows) but it certainly isn't demonstrated by their participation in gun threads.

The problem is that gun lovers are only educated about guns. They almost literally know nothing beyond this topic. The rest of humanity doesn't get caught in their semantics and obsessions with minutiae and just want the incidence of kindergarteners murdered to decline. One doesn't need to be a gun expert to call for reform, thank God.

duffblue:demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: It's not a prerequisite, merely the reasoning behind the right.

No, it's the RESPONSIBILITY that goes with the right.

Well call us up when you need a militia.

Now. We have a storm-ravaged coast, massive unemployment, decaying infrastructure, a flu epidemic, homeless veterans, several political groups advocating sedition and even armed rebellion, and far too many innocent people being shot by lunatics.

Time for physical and mental screening followed by organization, disciplining, arming, and intensive training for all of the Militia.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

Is this sarcasm? I'm not really pro or anti-gun, more gun-neutral, but the pro-2nd amendment folks always seem much more intelligent and articulate in these threads, at least in relation to firearms and the law. The anti-gun people constantly use numerous logical fallacies and misleading terminology to make their points. They may be more education overall (who the fark knows) but it certainly isn't demonstrated by their participation in gun threads.

In this thread, I have noticed the exact opposite of what you have just said.

demaL-demaL-yeH:Now. We have a storm-ravaged coast, massive unemployment, decaying infrastructure, a flu epidemic, homeless veterans, several political groups advocating sedition and even armed rebellion, and far too many innocent people being shot by lunatics.

ThrobblefootSpectre:Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

That really is weird. Because what I definitely see in these threads is that anti-gun people are obsessed with penis size (in every single thread), think about the children a little too often, and panic over stuff that has been around for decades and never used in a crime, while crime is falling steadily. I have yet to see a single coherent rational argument from someone who wants to further restrict guns. Mostly it's the "think of the children!!!" argument used to back up the TSA and anti-abortion arguments also.

Accusing anti-gun people of being obsessed with penis size because they point out pro-gun people's obsession with replacing their small penises with guns is like accusing people who call out racists as being racist themselves. It makes you look stupid, in a "no, YOUR mom" kind of way.